HL Deb 03 June 1985 vol 464 cc527-36

5.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement about the entry to the United Kingdom of Tamils from Sri Lanka which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"On 20th May in reply to a Question from my honourable friend the Member for Lewisham West, I announced my future policy towards Sri Lankan Tamils who expressed a fear of return to Sri Lanka. In the week following that statement over 500 Tamils arrived here seeking asylum. I decided that further measures were necessary to reduce the influx and, after consultation with my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 29th May announced the imposition of a visa requirement for Sri Lankan citizens, to come into effect the following day. The need for such a measure was demonstrated by the fact that 244 Tamils arrived on 29th May.

"A further 76 Tamils arrived shortly after the visa requirement came into effect, but there have been no further arrivals over the week-end or so far today.

"The imposition of a visa requirement will not prevent the entry of those Sri Lankan citizens who qualify for admission in the normal way, for example, as visitors or students, although they will, of course, have to obtain visas before travelling. It will save the cost and disappointment of wasted journeys for those who would not be allowed to enter because they do not qualify under the immigration rules. If a Tamil not qualifying under the rules and seeking in present circumstances to leave Sri Lanka wishes to come to this country, he will be able to apply for a visa. Such applications will, however, only be granted if the individual can show that he is suffering severe hardship and the circumstances (including, for example, family links with this country) warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour outside the nomal immigartion rules.

"The position of all the Tamils who have recently arrived will continue to be considered individually on the basis set out on 20th May. Where an application for asylum is refused there will be an opportunity for the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to consider the case and representations from Members of Parliament will continue to be considered.

"It was only with great reluctance that I decided that it was necessary to impose a visa requirement on a fellow Commonwealth country. The need for it will be kept under review and I hope it can be lifted in due course."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, with the usual courtesy of this House, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for having repeated the Statement made by his right honourable friend in the other place? I ask for the forgiveness of the House, if, because of the grave constitutional and humane considerations that apply to this Statement, I speak for longer than I normally do in reply to a Statement which is made in this House.

It was against the background of press reports of great persecution of Tamils, civilian casualties among the Tamils, including women and children, and indeed of a statement that was issued by Amnesty International to all the relevant governments and delivered, so it tells me, to the Home Office on 24th May, that the decision and the statement of the Home Secretary on 29th May were made. I ask your Lordships' leave to quote but one paragraph from the statement of Amnesty International of 24th May.

Amnesty International says that it, urgently renews its appeal to the Governments of countries in which such persons have sought or will be seeking refuge not to return Tamils against their will to Sri Lanka. Amnesty International makes this appeal against the background of reports received in recent weeks of: Renewed and widespread extrajudicial killings of members of the Tamil minority by members of the Sri Lanka security forces; Widespread arrests and detentions in many parts of Sri Lanka of members of the Tamil minority, among them reports that persons who have allegedly been arrested by security forces' personnel have 'disappeared', officials denying knowledge of their arrest but their relatives expressing fears they may have been killed in custody; Widespread torture of detainees". It appears—and I ask this of the noble Lord, the Minister—that the reply of the Home Secretary of this country, with its great tradition of mercy to those who are fleeing from persecutions, was to issue a directive for the first time to a Commonwealth country that citizens of that Commonwealth country, who indeed had been British citizens two years ago, and who were in trouble, could not even travel to this country without a visa. That was the response, I repeat, of her Majesty's Government. Ten hours' notice was given of that directive, that restriction. Even the Iranians, who were not members of our Commonwealth but who did indeed suffer persecution and terror, were given seven days' notice of the fact that visas would be required. As I say, the constitutional, quite apart from the human, point of view is emphasised by the fact that no other Commonwealth country has ever been issued with that restriction.

I move on, if I may, to the numbers quoted in the Statement. One would have thought that thousands of Tamils had entered this country. The Statement says that there were 500 before the directive and 200-odd just afterwards. Then the complacent statement is made—I am trying to use moderate words—that since the restriction no Tamils have arrived in this country over this weekend and today. Of course they have not, and The Times of Saturday says exactly why. If I may, I shall quote from The Times, from their correspondent in Colombo: Yesterday a crowd of about 200 waited outside the closed gates while security personnel stood by. Ten people were allowed in at a time". I pause there. One could imagine the anxiety, if that be the appropriate word, of those in that queue being watched by the security police lining up to try and get out in order to save lives. Ten people were allowed in at a time. A single counter to give and receive forms created frustration but a High Commission official said visa section staff would be increased if the crowds continued". I ask the noble Lord the Minister: how many staff are now in the Commission to deal with these visa applications, with what speed is it intended to deal with them, and who has the authority—is it the officials in our High Commission—to grant the visas or have the application forms transferred to this country first for a decision to be made?

Lastly, will those who are here be treated with compassion so that they can stay here at least until we are satisfied that they can return to their native country in safety? I ask the Minister: is it correct that what appeared in the press was the instruction of his right honourable and learned friend; namely, that Members of another place would have literally 24 hours within which to make representations on behalf of these people? Will the noble Lord the Minister assure the House that proper, adequate time will be given for these representations to be made? May I appeal to the noble Lord the Minister to ensure that whatever may have been suffered by this country in regard to its reputation in Brussels, our long-standing tradition of honour concerning political refugees, and certainly the treatment of citizens of the Commonwealth, will be upheld by this Government?

Lord Avebury

My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that while there may be, in a strict interpretation, no individual fear of persecution in that the policy of the Sri Lanka Government is not to murder and torture innocent civilians, there is nevertheless abundant evidence, set out in the Amnesty report quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and in other places, that the security forces are out of control and that they murder, torture, loot and rape indiscriminately in the Tamil areas? Apart from the Amnesty report, have the Government studied the report of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, the representatives of which, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk and Mr. Roger Sims, recently spent 10 days in Sri Lanka? Following that visit they concluded that there was forced removal of thousands of Tamil people from their homes on the northern and eastern seaboard and that the figure of 100,000 of such refugees in Mana and Jaffna given by the Government was a conservative estimate; that there was indiscriminate rounding up of all men aged between 16 and 35 years in a large area around any terrorist incident, with the removal of those young men to detention camps many miles from their homes; that beating and torture during interrogation is the norm; that prolonged detention without charge or access to lawyers or relatives of these detainees is also usual; that dozens of political prisoners are detained under the emergency regulations either for trivial offences or on suspicion; and that there is mass killing by the army of innocent civilians.

Is the noble Lord aware that I have received a report just now of an incident in Pankulani, on the road between Trincomalee and Jaffna, when a bus carrying 57 Tamils was stopped by the airforce and 13 of the passengers were shot dead? It was only the latest in a series of massacres by members of the armed forces. Sixty people, for example, were rounded up by the Special Task Force in the Eastern province after being arrested on the 16th, 17th and 18th May and shot and buried in a mass grave near Thanbiluvil. Five refugees were murdered by a soldier in an army camp near Anuradhapura. Seventy-five civilians, including women and children were killed in Velvettiturai on 9th May. Forty-eight Tamil passengers on a bus between Delft and Ninativa were killed on 15th May. One could go on. There are a great many such incidents involving members of the security forces. Are the Government aware that at least 1,300 people, innocent civilians, perished in actions by the security forces during 1984, and that the scale of the carnage is much greater during the present year?

In these circumstances would the Government not be justified in granting exceptional leave to remain, unless there were good reasons to suppose that an applicant was not a refugee, thus taking the onus of proof off the individual, as we did of course, as the noble Lord will remember, in the case of Cypriots following the Turkish invasion in 1974, and in the case of the Iranians, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has reminded us, following the accession of the Ayatollah Khomeini? Granted that such a policy might create strains on our resources, would the Government not enter into urgent consultation with other receiving countries, with a view to sharing the burden equitably, and deciding on common policies which are in conformity with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on refugees?

In that connection may I ask three questions. First, did the Government notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the new procedures now being followed as a result of the Statement by the Home Secretary in another place on 20th May, as they were bound to do under Article 36 of the convention relating to the status of refugees? Secondly, how do they purport to impose an additional test of "severe hardship" which is not to be found in the convention? Thirdly, how are they complying with the provisions of Article 31(2) of the convention, which allows refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission to another country?

Is the Minister aware that it is not correct to say, as the Statement does, that no Tamils arrived over the weekend; that I personally dealt with four such persons who arrived at Dover from Ostend on Saturday morning; that I understood from the Home Office official to whom I spoke that there were at least two other groups similarly situated, and that he agreed with me that it was absurd to suppose that my representations could be lodged within 24 hours? That would have meant that they had to be in the Home Office on Sunday, when there would have been no Minister there to deal with them, so he was graciously pleased to extend the 24 hours to 48 hours. That meant that the lawyer from the law centre involved who was dealing with the case had to fetch the persons from Dover to London to interview them and take their statements, and had to go round to my house on Sunday, and that I had to write a three-page letter to the Minister and deliver it by hand this morning. All this places the agencies looking after applicants under the most impossible disabilities.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he would deal with this particular case. What is the situation of Tamils who were legitimately resident in this country, who went abroad temporarily during the currency of their permitted leave to remain, and who are now attempting to return here following the introduction of the new rules? This family with which I have dealt consists of three students who were attending colleges of further or higher education, whose mother had come to see them on a short visit, and who did not intend to apply for asylum. They hoped that by the time they came to the end of their courses of study the situation in Sri Lanka might have improved. But they would not be able to put their hands on their hearts and state, as they have to under the rules, that they were definitely going to return to their country of origin on the completion of their studies. I want to ask the Minister what is the Government's policy on this matter, because it may be that, as a result of their panic measures, they will force many people into applying prematurely for asylum when otherwise they would be perfectly content to remain here as visitors.

Finally, is the Minister aware that consternation has been expressed not only in Britain, by organisations such as Amnesty International and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, but from as far afield as Australia? I had a cable from Australia signed by the chairman of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group there, Senator Alan Misson, saying that he was very concerned to read in the Australian newspapers about the policies of the British and Dutch Governments; and I understand that the Dutch have now resiled from a statement similar to that made by the Home Secretary. Would the Government, before proceeding on the course of action that they have started, consult urgently with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that any changes in policy that we finally adopt are examined by a dispassionate observer and found to be in conformity with our international obligations before they are put into effect?

5.56 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments on the Statement which I repeated. I am tempted to start by dealing with some of the history of the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, introduced, but I think that the most important point I can make is that we were faced with exceptional circumstances, and exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was quite right when he said that this is the first time that Commonwealth citizens have been subject to a visa requirement. But entry clearance has long been mandatory for Commonwealth citizens wishing to come here for settlement, and it has always been open to Commonwealth citizens wishing to come here for temporary purposes to apply for entry clearance.

The other side of the coin, to some extent, although I can see that it does not fully justify the argument, is that a number of other Commonwealth countries—Australia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and, most recently, India—require British citizens to have visas to go there in the same way. The fact is that Sri Lankan citizens were not British citizens up to two years ago—like all Commonwealth citizens, they were British subjects—and that, I am sure, is a point of which both noble Lords will be aware.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the Amnesty statement. We shall, of course, have to study this statement with care, but, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained in his Statement of 20th May, to which I referred, we do not believe that the situation in Sri Lanka is such as to require us to allow every Tamil who wishes to stay here to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quoted a number of figures taken from recent times to indicate the severity of the threat to them. Those figures are to some extent at odds with the information that we have. There has been no repetition of the massive violence against Tamils of July 1983, and I am aware of the fact that in that case several hundred died. Of course, the Government have made plain to the Sri Lankan Government our view that there must be a political settlement to such intercommunal problems as these, taking into account the interests and the concerns of all the communities. We shall continue to follow this through.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked why it was necessary to impose this requirement at such short notice. The reason was that we were faced, as I said at the start, with an exceptional situation which was caused by a continuing large number of arrivals—some 1,336, or thereabouts—since the beginning of May. That is a very substantial figure which must be dealt with. These people must be found accommodation, and there is a great problem and burden which the staffs at the airports and ports have to take care of. If one had given more advance warning, one would only have encouraged the rush of more to come here in the intervening period, which I would not necessarily think would in every case be for the benefit of those who would come. As was made clear in the Statement, there would be those who were faced with return air fares, and so on.

It is not fair to compare this situation with that of Iran. There was a different situation then. That was a direct result of a foreign policy initiative—one in which, I think I am right in saying, other European countries joined. We were dealing with a simpler, pure immigration problem; one that embroiled the whole forum of foreign affairs.

As regards the figures for those arriving over the weekend. I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but no Sri Lankan families arrived over the weekend seeking asylum. If they were arriving in some other way, the noble Lord may have information that I do not have. But that is all I can tell him at this moment. I shall come to the 24-hour issue in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked about the number of staff who were involved. He indicated that there could well be delays in processing people in Sri Lanka as a result of this requirement. I can tell him that two full-time Foreign Office staff will be available there from mid-July, but to meet the immediate situation two temporary staff will be going to Colombo today; another two more temporaries will be available there at the end of the week—and they could stay longer to cope with the immediate summer rush, if there is one—and at least two interpreters will be found locally to meet the needs of these people. Additionally, two immigration officers were sent out from the immigration department of the Home Office on Saturday to assist with reinforcement at the High Commission. The noble Lord referred to that article in The Times. I cannot say that the numbers the article gave were absolutely correct, but to allow 10 people or more than 10 people or a great many people into the High Commission at any one time would not have been possible without the staff to deal with this problem. That is why these new staff are being made available.

With regard to referrals, as I understand it the majority will be dealt with there but there may be particularly difficult cases which have to be referred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That, I should imagine, is the normal course of events; but everything that can be done to speed things up will be done.

The noble Lord raised the question of the 24 hours, particularly for Members of your Lordships' House and of another place. There may have been a misinterpretation placed on this issue by the press or perhaps by those who read the press. We think it is reasonable to expect Members of your Lordships' House and others to make representations within about 24 hours. I cannot say that 24 hours is a thoroughly dogmatic figure, and there will be some give and take. Whether a weekend is covered in this way I am quite sure will be a point to be borne in mind by my right honourable friend. I think that the system will cater for that, but if there is a particular case that somebody is going to produce evidence or make a representation within 30 hours or something like that—by saying "30 hours" I am not now making that an absolute cut-off point—that is a perfectly reasonable time for representations to be made. It does not refer, as I think might have been represented, to a turn-around time, so to speak, for these people.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister leaves that point, whether it be 24 hours or 48 hours is he seriously suggesting that that is a reasonable time for public representatives to take instructions and to make sure that the facts that reach the Home Office have been checked and that the proper case is made on behalf of these people? Is this the sort of time limit that the Home Secretary feels to be just and equitable?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, yes. If it is the case that representations are made to Members of your Lordships' House or of another place in instances of this kind, then a time limit of 24 hours, give or take, is considered by those who deal with these matters to be appropriate. As I said just now in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I understand that the machinery can cover weekends. He referred to one particular case over this weekend, but I do not have the details or that information with me. But, as I understand it, yes, it will be generally possible. However, I note the noble Lord's concern.

With regard to Sri Lankans returning from visits abroad, they should obtain visas but there is no reason why they should not be granted visas in order to continue their studies. I brought out this point when I repeated the Statement.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, these people came back from Ostend to Dover and they were not aware of the imposition of these new requirements by the Home Secretary. No one told them when they were in Europe and so the first they knew about it was when they came to Dover and were informed by the immigration officers that the new restriction had been imposed.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, there are always people who fall between two stools. I cannot comment on a particular case which the noble Lord brings to me. I am quite sure that if there were particular circumstances unusual to that group who were genuinely returning, if they were, as students from abroad, that would be taken account of by the authorities. What I cannot do is comment now on the case in any great detail.

With regard to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the issues associated with this, the people we are talking about are not refugees within the terms of the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wishes to intervene. I shall allow him to intervene so that I can hear what he has to say.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, the noble Lord cannot say that. If they have not been given an opportunity to present their case it is quite improper for him to say that they are not refugees. The convention does provide that proper tests should be imposed to see whether a person can justify his claim. If the noble Lord is saying that all these people, because they are Tamils, are ipso facto deemed not to be refugees, that is a violation of our obligations under the convention.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the terms are set out quite clearly in the handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status. Yes, it has to be determined, but as I understand it they are not refugees within the terms of the convention. Furthermore, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees accepts that. So the notification requirements of the convention do not apparently apply in this case.

The noble Lord asked me whether or not the Secretary-General is aware of the new procedures. As I understand it, that really is covered by the answer I have just given him. With regard to severe hardship, it is important that every case is discussed on its merits. There will be differences in many cases and it is important that it is severe hardship that is established as the reason for the person coming here or staying here. I cannot, I am afraid, give the noble Lord an answer now about whether or not it does comply with Article 31 but I should like to study that article and the point that he makes. I have answered the point about the Tamils who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, arrived over the weekend, and I shall examine the other points and details that he raised.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me whether or not we would continue to look compassionately upon those who may be faced with the dilemma over here. Of course we will look compassionately upon them, but I hope that the noble Lord and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will understand that there are occasions when the book, if one likes, does not cater for a particular set of circumstances. That is what happened here. We were faced with a huge influx over the month of May, so sensible precautions for the welfare not so much of ourselves but of them in particular had to be taken so that they would be adequately looked after. The fact is that if they were to come here and were to clog up the centres where they are looked after and accommodation was not available for them, they would not be in the sort of position in which I am sure both noble Lords would like to see them. That is why it was necessary to take the steps which were taken. That is why my right honourable friend said that he imposed this restriction with great reluctance and that he will keep it under review and hopes that it can be lifted again in due course.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, as chairman of the Asian Committee of the British Refugee Council, supported by the Government, which has been following this situation very closely over the past few weeks, may I ask why the Government have not considered it appropriate to consult with the voluntary organisations who have been dealing with this issue? Will the Minister accept further that the rules that have now been adopted by the British Government are more stringent than those of any of our partners in Europe? The noble Lord referred to the question of the United Nations High Commision for Refugees, but the United Nations High Commisioner is extremely concerned about the way in which the British Government have handled this situation. The High Commissioner himself will be in London on Wednesday and this is one of the issues that he will be raising.

The noble Lord referred also to the problem of accommodation. A number of organisations are meeting this weekend in my presence to examine the accommodation facilities that we can provide for people who otherwise might have no accommodation available to them. Of course there is accommodation available; that is what the British Refugee Council and the voluntary organisations are there to help provide, but they have not been consulted.

Finally, would the Minister not accept that there is a great deal of difference between permission to stay—which, so far as I know, no one is suggesting—and the other alternative, which is either deportation or a refusal for admission even for a temporary period? Surely the Minister recognises that there is a fundamental difference between the two.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asks why consultation—as he addresses the issue—did not take place. We were faced with very substantial increases, as I indicated. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of the figures.

Lord Ennals

Yes, my Lords.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, perhaps I may start by giving some indication of the figures to the noble Lord, because I did not give detailed figures before. In the period commencing Wednesday, 22nd May, there were 175 arrivals. On 23rd May, the figure was 38; on 24th May, 115; on 25th May, 22 and on the 26th May, there were 144 arrivals. The next big increase was on Wednesday, 29th May. Between the 21st May and 27th May, 532 Tamils arrived.

When it became quite clear that the position was becoming untenable from our point of view and would lead to very unsatisfactory circumstances for those Tamils who came here, it was necessary to take an exceptional measure. I am certain that representations will be made as a result of it from all sorts of people. Indeed, representations are being made today and I am sure that my right honourable friend will note them most carefully. The fact is, as I have indicated, that one cannot just allow a problem to increase without taking some kind of action to try to stem it; sensible action which, in the end, will benefit those who are trying to come to this country.

So far as concerns the difference between permission to stay and deportation, I accept that there is a world of difference—but again it comes back to the fact that not every person who is coming here from Sri Lanka claiming to be the possible victim of the kind of measure which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described is in fact in that particular boat. That is why it is mportant that every single case is considered carefully on its merits. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to the fact that on 31st May the President of Sri Lanka gave our High Commissioner a formal and personal assurance that no Tamils returned to Sri Lanka would be harassed or persecuted in any way.